- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. On being appointed as a clerk by the Development Officer (Leather) Kanpur on 2-1-1956 the petitioner was promoted and appoin ted as Head Clerk-cum-Accountant by the Director of Industries, by an order dated 7-11-1959. By an order dated 16th May, 1977 the District Industries Officer, Etah, suspended the petitioner with effect from 19-5-1977. A charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 19-7-1977 and pursuant to which an inquiry was held. By an order dated 13-4-1978, after the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct three penalties were imposed upon him namely : (a) pay for the period of suspension was limited to the extent of subsistence allowance. (b) Adverse entry in the character toll of the petitioner was entered. (c) Debarring the petitioner from promotion for three years. Against the said order of punishment dated 13-4-1978 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director of Industries on 13-7-1978. Though two years have passed after filing of the appeal, no decision was taken on the said appeal. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a claim petition being claim petition No. 472 (F)/iii of 1980 before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. By an order dated 30th May 1986 the said claim petition was dismissed. The petitioner has impugned the said order dated 30thjmay, 1986 in the present writ petition and prayed for quashing of the said impugned order.
(2.) IN the counter affidavit it has been asserted that inquiry into the charges were held in accordance with the rule and the petitioner was found guilty of various charges, against which he submitted a representation to the Director of INdustries and before the same could be decided, he presented a claim petition, which has since been dismissed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. Since the petitioner has not exhausted the departmental remedies his claim petition was barred by Section 4 of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the said Act. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has controverted the state ment in the counter affidavit and has pointed out that he had preferred an appeal which was not decided for a long period of two years. Therefore, he had presented the claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. In support of the writ petition learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Annexure 14 to the writ petition, being the impugned order dated 30th May, 1986 passed in Claim Petition No. 472 (F)/ii of 1980. Out of the four reliefs enumerated on page 2 of the said order the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would be pressing only relief No. 1 and he has not pressed reliefs No. 2, 3 and 4.
(3.) A perusal of the impugned order dated 30th May, 1986 indicates that so far as relief No. 2 relating to the quashing of adverse entries are concerned, the same was allowed by the impugned order, The relief No. 3 for payment of Rs. 285. 95 as Travelling allowance was disallowed. Whereas relief No. 4 was not pressed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Now turning to relief No. 1 for quashing the order of suspension and punishment, being Annexures 1 and 7 to the Claim petition I find that the said relief was denied by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal') on the ground that the claim peti tion was barred under the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act. Since the petitioner did not exhaust the departmental remedies, he had recorded his reasons that as in Paras 10 and 24 of the counter affidavit before the Tribunal the respondents had pleaded to the above extent which was not specifically denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit, in paragraphs '?' and 'u' before the Tribunal. Therefore the contention of the respondent before the Tribunal were accepted and upheld by the Tribunal.;